alt.education

Bert Hyman wrote:
>anarcissie@gmail.com (*Anarcissie*) wrote in
>news:3eade11e-e41e-4977-a7db-50c14da179fc@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 13, 9:04 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> loj...@lojban.org (Bob LeChevalier) wrote
>>> innews:v2bgt3hitof4n2ucmt8c2tm7reoqbgucj0@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > Democracy is the worst form of government
>>> > except for all the rest.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the constitutional republic that we started out
>>> with?
>>>
>>> How is unfettered democracy any good whatsoever?
>>
>> What democracy? I don't see any democracy.
>
>You're holding democracy up as the best available system;

*Anarcissie* isn't me.

>I'm asking what's so good about it.

It is better than the alternatives.

>When I said "It appears that you're really supporting a form of
>government where anything goes so long as the majority wants it", you
>replied

No, I did.

>"Subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights, that is what we
>have. Its virtue is irrelevant."
>
>It seemed to me that you thought we had a democracy here,

We have a form of government where at the state level, subject to the
Bill of Rights, whatever "we the people" can force our elected
representatives to approve, or through the initiative process in some
states, despite our elected representatives, virtually anything goes.

I don't care what word you want to label this system with, but it is
the system we have. And it is the worst one we could have, except for
all of the rest.

>When you went on to elaborate
>"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest", I
>was even more certain that you were describing our current system as a
>democracy.

I am using "democracy" as a shorthand for "the will of the majority
inevitably prevails" barring constitutional restrictions. I don't
give damn what word you might think is better.

>Of course, a pure democracy is indistinguishable from mob rule

Mobs don't have constitutions. And what we have at the state level
isn't that far removed from mob rule, and before the civil war really
wasn't removed at all.

>> Democracy would require public discussion of important issues and
>> some form of public decision-making. I don't know if such
>> an arrangement is even possible on a large scale, but
>> there is certainly nothing like that taking place at the
>> present time. Few people seem to desire it anyway --
>> it would take time away from contemplating the mating
>> and breeding practices of mindless celebrities.
>
>All of which is exactly why we don't have a democracy in the US, but
>instead have a constitutional republic with elected representatives
>and officers who were supposed to act under the strict control of the
>limited and enumerated powers granted by the Constitution.

That formula works to describe the government at the Federal level.
At the state level, constitutions were NOT written to limit state
powers, and the enumerations are sufficiently large in number and
vagueness that there isn't much that the state cannot do, if its
elected representatives or the public want it bad enough (and the
elected representatives are a LOT more accountable to the public these
days than 200 years ago, so the separation between the two isn't that
great. If you doubt this, look at the newly former governor of New
York, who left office, while comparing with Aaron Burr who was one
electoral vote from being President in 1800, and who committed public
murder of a noted Founder while in office as Vice President (for which
he was charged but never stood trial), but didn't resign.

lojbab